Process for Revising Executive Orders in the Philippines

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the process for revising (amending or repealing) Executive Orders in the Philippines, grounded in Philippine constitutional and legal principles. This article covers the nature, legal basis, scope, and limitations of Executive Orders (EOs), as well as the formal and practical routes through which they can be revised.

I. Introduction

Executive Orders (EOs) are issuances by the President of the Philippines that direct government agencies in the executive branch, clarify existing laws or policies, and otherwise manage operations of the government. Under the 1987 Constitution, executive power is vested in the President (Article VII, Section 1). While there is no one “codified procedure” for issuing or revising EOs laid out explicitly in the Constitution, the President’s authority to issue them is recognized by tradition, jurisprudence, and statute (including the Administrative Code of 1987).

As governance evolves, new administrations or new policy considerations sometimes necessitate amendments, modifications, or even outright revocations of previously issued Executive Orders. This article explains the process by which EOs may be revised or repealed, including the legal basis, constitutional limits, and pertinent procedural steps.

II. Legal Basis and Nature of Executive Orders

  1. Constitutional Grant of Executive Power

    • Article VII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution vests executive power in the President. Although it does not expressly define the parameters for Executive Orders, the President’s authority to issue them flows from this general grant of executive power.
    • The Supreme Court of the Philippines has held in various decisions (e.g., Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998) that the President may issue orders to carry out the functions of the executive branch, but such orders cannot contravene any existing law passed by Congress or the Constitution itself.

  2. Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292)

    • The Administrative Code of 1987 provides a legal foundation for the issuance of executive directives. Under Book III, Chapter 2, the President is empowered to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed and to issue necessary orders, rules, and regulations for the efficient administration of government.
    • The Code also recognizes different forms of presidential issuances (e.g., Executive Orders, Administrative Orders, Proclamations, Memorandum Orders, Memorandum Circulars), each serving distinct purposes.

  3. Scope and Effect of Executive Orders

    • Executive Orders typically address matters such as reorganizing government agencies, detailing policy implementation within the executive branch, or filling in administrative or regulatory gaps in existing laws.
    • They bind executive agencies and instrumentalities but must not conflict with statutes enacted by Congress or the Constitution. If there is conflict, the statute or constitutional provision prevails.

III. The Process of Issuing and Revising Executive Orders

A. Original Issuance of an EO

  1. Policy Formulation and Drafting

    • The process generally begins within the executive branch. The Office of the President (often through the Presidential Management Staff and the relevant Cabinet secretaries) will develop a draft of the EO.
    • The draft undergoes review to ensure alignment with existing laws, the Constitution, and government policy.

  2. Legal Review and Signature

    • The Office of the Executive Secretary, alongside legal counsel within Malacañang, reviews the draft EO to confirm its legality and adherence to policy.
    • Once approved, the President signs the EO. Upon signing, it is numbered and dated.

  3. Publication and Effectivity

    • For an EO to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is required under existing jurisprudence (e.g., Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986).
    • The EO usually specifies its own effective date. In the absence of such, existing rules on publication take precedence (i.e., 15 days after publication or as stated in the order).

B. Revising or Amending an Existing EO

Because Executive Orders are instruments of the President’s executive power, a current President may revise, amend, or repeal an EO previously issued by either the same administration or a prior one. The main methods for revising or revoking EOs are:

  1. Issuance of a New Executive Order

    • The most straightforward way to revise an EO is through a subsequent EO that explicitly modifies, supplements, or supersedes an existing EO.
    • For example, an EO might state: “Section 3 of Executive Order No. XXX (series of XXXX) is hereby amended to read as follows…” or “Executive Order No. XXX is hereby repealed…”
    • Once the new EO takes effect, it legally changes the scope or content of the prior EO.

  2. Inclusion of Amending Provisions in a Broader Policy EO

    • Sometimes a new EO may tackle a broader policy area and include specific sections that revise or repeal parts of older EOs. This typically happens when the government is reorganizing multiple agencies, introducing new policy frameworks, or updating old mandates across a range of sectors.

  3. Revocation via Enabling Legislation or Congressional Action

    • Although less common, if Congress passes a law that conflicts with or supersedes the provisions of an existing EO, that EO effectively becomes inoperative in the areas of conflict.
    • Congress can pass legislation that codifies, modifies, or repeals an EO’s policy directives if it chooses. However, since EOs generally implement or clarify existing legislation rather than create entirely new policies, direct revocation by Congress is rare but remains legally valid.

  4. Judicial Invalidation

    • The courts—specifically the Supreme Court—may declare an EO (or its parts) unconstitutional or invalid if it violates the Constitution or exceeds the President’s authority.
    • While this form of “revision” does not originate from the executive branch itself, a declaration of unconstitutionality renders the EO (or the relevant provision) void or unenforceable.

C. Procedure Once a Revised EO is Drafted

  1. Preparation of the Draft

    • Relevant offices under the President prepare the text indicating the amended provisions.
    • Explanatory notes or recitals in the preamble often explain the necessity of the revision, referencing legal bases or changed circumstances.

  2. Legal Vetting

    • The draft is subjected to the same vetting procedure as any new EO, passing through the Office of the Executive Secretary or the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs.
    • The revision must not contravene existing statutes or the Constitution. A new EO that revises an older EO must also ensure consistency within the executive’s general policy framework.

  3. Presidential Approval and Signature

    • After clearance and any final edits, the EO is signed by the President, formally adopting the amendments or revocations.

  4. Publication and Effectivity

    • As with any EO, publication and indication of the effective date are required. The revised EO then becomes the controlling executive issuance on the matter.

IV. Limitations on Revising Executive Orders

  1. Constitutional and Statutory Constraints

    • The President cannot use an EO to bypass or undermine provisions of the Constitution, statutory requirements set by Congress, or judicial decisions.
    • An EO that exceeds the President’s rule-making power can be challenged and invalidated by the courts.

  2. Good Faith and Non-Arbitrariness

    • Although the President wields broad discretion in issuing EOs, they must be anchored on legitimate governmental objectives and within the confines of the law. Arbitrariness or bad faith could invite judicial scrutiny.

  3. Respect for Vested Rights

    • While generally EOs can be changed at will by a new President, if private rights have already vested or if contractual obligations are in place based on an EO’s mandate, the government may face complications or be required to pay compensation if such rights are unilaterally impaired.

  4. Separation of Powers

    • The separation of powers principle restricts the President from encroaching on legislative or judicial prerogatives. EOs cannot amend or repeal legislation enacted by Congress, except in areas of purely executive or administrative control.

V. Notable Jurisprudence and Examples

  1. Ople v. Torres (G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998)

    • The Supreme Court struck down an administrative order (akin to an EO in function), ruling that the President’s directive establishing a national computer identification system had no sufficient statutory basis and violated the right to privacy.

  2. David v. Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006)

    • Though focused on a presidential proclamation related to emergency powers, this case underscored that presidential issuances must conform to constitutional principles and are subject to judicial review.

  3. Executive Orders in Government Reorganization

    • Various administrations have used EOs to reorganize executive offices, such as the creation of new committees, task forces, or the merger of agencies. In many instances, a subsequent EO revised or repealed earlier reorganizations when a new President assumed office and introduced different priorities.

VI. Practical Considerations

  1. Transition Between Administrations

    • New Presidents often review the EOs issued by their predecessors to determine if they align with their own policy agenda. Early in their term, they may issue a blanket directive to review, revoke, or revise existing EOs.
    • However, certain EOs remain intact if they are widely seen as non-controversial or beneficial to continuity of governance.

  2. Need for Regulatory Consistency

    • Government agencies affected by an EO (or its revision) typically coordinate with the Office of the President to ensure the new issuance is coherent with existing laws. This prevents legal conflicts and minimizes administrative disruption.

  3. Stakeholder Consultation

    • In practice, when a proposed amendment or repeal of an EO might significantly affect the public interest, concerned stakeholders (e.g., local government units, private sector, civil society) are sometimes consulted informally or through public fora.

VII. Conclusion

Revising Executive Orders in the Philippines is primarily an exercise of the President’s inherent executive power. The process is not rigidly codified but proceeds through well-established practices of drafting, legal review, and issuance from the Office of the President. Amendments or repeals occur via subsequent EOs, legislative enactments, or judicial decisions. Although the President’s authority to revise EOs is broad, it is circumscribed by the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, judicial decisions, and fundamental legal doctrines such as separation of powers and due process.

In sum, understanding the process of revising Executive Orders requires appreciation of the President’s role as Chief Executive, the limits set forth by the rule of law, and the dynamic interplay among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Through this framework, EOs can be kept responsive to evolving national needs while ensuring they remain grounded in the rule of law.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login